Should fans have a say?

[Nick]

I heard a great debate on radio today on if fans should realistically have a say in anything.

I am sure they came up with the idea because the entire not starting Orton thing.

I personally am glad they do not listen to fans from a lot of posts I see on the board. ;) j/k

I personally think the fans shouldn't have a say because this is the reason people in office are getting paid for. If you don't like what you are paying for.. Don't pay for it (also that way I get my season tickets a little quicker). Any professional team would make a major change from a team is if it is going to help financially or win games.

A great analogy I heard was a person mentioned if he has 5 shares of apple... Should he have a say on there releases? Should a person have say if they have 1200 shares have a say for something else to be released first?

Absolutely not.

If I currently take my child to private school. Do I have a say in policy?

Same thing with sports. You better be investing a lot of money into the business before you think you ever will have a say. This is not just entertainment but also a business.

Can you imagine a vet athlete ever wanting to come to a team that pulls a player for a fan? Can you imagine what kind of coach that would be swayed by a fan?

What do you all think. With out discussing our QB situation in general about how much say should a fan actually have?

[sneakers]

If people stop going to games, the owner will listen real quickly once he starts losing that stadium revenue.

[Tned]

No, fans should have no say in player/personnel issues. Things like the orange jerseys, sure, let their voices be heard. I'm even okay with positive signs in the stadium or wearing a jersey of a player you like.

However, IMO, the HC should be fired if he benched a player and started another, just based on fan outcry.

Did fans really know better when they called for BVP to start?

[NightTrainLayne]

No, fans don't have a say, but your analogy comparing a shareholder of a Corporation is flawed. Every shareholder has a say. They have the right to vote in proportion to their shares.

If course, someone with only 5 shares has very little power individually, yet, if there is a large group of like-minded small shareholders they can hold sway.

[Clipworthy]

Fans should have a say, in this situation. 3 years of torture. Very unique circumstance.

[BroncoTech]

Of course fans should have a say. This isn't shopping or educational, it's entertainment. At times like this when the Broncos are less than entertaining I'd be listening to what the fans want. The fans vote with their dollar and when there's no sellout there's no tv revenue either. Trust me here in Oakland I know this.
Why would the opinion of a first year coach out weight the views of a fan since the 60's? He's temporary, I'm permanent.

[getlynched47]

Fans keep the NFL running, so of course we should have a say.

If the team doesn't give a rats ass, they can go kick rocks and collect unemployment when the NFL bottoms out (it will, eventually)

[Bullgator]

HELL YES!

I think we should all have built in I-pads into our seats at the stadium and that we should each get to vote on who should start and what the next play should be! a stadium of coaches for every team that would be sweeeet! keep the staffs to train the teams and run practices but let the fans run the game. :salute:

[chazoe60]

No, fans should not have a say, but we should be listened to. We should also be sucked up to a bit. When a tool like Orton, who has done shit for this franchise, basically says "I don't care about the fans" he should be booed to no end when he plays like garbage. At the same time, fans are much too emotionally invested in their teams and should not carry much more sway than their ticket purchases buy them.

I will say though that dans are right on a lot of occasions, and I think the large amount of fans pushing for Orton to be benched are right on the money. That's why places like this are great, we can vent and express our opinions.

[Lancane]

I believe that fans should be heard, but that an organization itself should not be run of the basis of a fan bases' opinions. Let's face it, opinions are like ass***es, everyone has one - and as such it could cause several issues within an organization.

However, like Tned said, there are exceptions to the rule. I don't give a rat's ass if someone wants to protest something in his or her own manner, no matter the cause...that's their constitutional rights. And I do believe however, that teams should listen to the fans and respect their opinions, see what bothers them because they are the backbone of any professional sports team. Doesn't matter if they're upset about a particular player or if they believe the uniforms are in need of change, whatever the cause, an NFL team should be aware of at least what is bothering their fan base, whether it's because they're upset with the price of concessions, feel parking is too expensive, that jerseys are poorly made or there is another item that has flaws and so on. Disgust with one particular player at a set position, does it mean their going to make a change at the position? No, but at least they know, and in doing so they can make a much more informed decision should they do something; for instance they could say "Should we extend Orton's contract?", then someone can say "Well we could but it could cost us in regards to the fans."

[zbeg]

There's just no way that the fans can make informed decisions about the team. The front office sees all the stuff going on behind the scenes, they see how the players practice, how they are in the locker room, get access to game film, etc.

Even when it comes to evaluating on-field performance, they understand football much much better than the fans do and can see things that the average person won't notice.

It's crazy to think that the fans can, or should sway the coaches in making personnel decisions. As Mike Holmgren said to Matt Hasselbeck after the fans were chanting for his backup (Trent Dilfer), "<bleep> the fans."

[nflfan]

HELL YES!

I think we should all have built in I-pads into our seats at the stadium and that we should each get to vote on who should start and what the next play should be! a stadium of coaches for every team that would be sweeeet! keep the staffs to train the teams and run practices but let the fans run the game. :salute:

Excellent idea! Also, during the draft, fans should be able to text in their votes on which player to draft.

[Nick]

No, fans don't have a say, but your analogy comparing a shareholder of a Corporation is flawed. Every shareholder has a say. They have the right to vote in proportion to their shares.

If course, someone with only 5 shares has very little power individually, yet, if there is a large group of like-minded small shareholders they can hold sway.

Not really flawed, if you get enough people which could effect a company or a team they would absolutely have to because it is detrimental to them.

However, That would sure be A LOT of people and ultimately do a lot of damage for that company and its stock.

Example: Apple has lets say has 800 million shares. If all the people with under 1k shares gets together... That sure would be ultimately a huge group.

If this happened, This will hurt everyone in the long run.

- If a Team is forced to remove a player because people do not go to the game. They would have to because they will ultimately lose a lot of money. It would take a lot of people to make this happen.

This will effect everyone also in long run. The overall trust and authority of the team would be jeopardized.

[Lancane]

Excellent idea! Also, during the draft, fans should be able to text in their votes on which player to draft.

Actually, we probably would have had better drafts then we've had to be honest! :lol:

[CrazyHorse]

Of course fans have a say, they just don't make the final decision. That is up to the owners, coaches, and management.

If you look at the Packers though, they're collectively owned and they seem to be doing pretty well. Maybe the NFL should switch to that type of model for all teams. It would definitely be interesting to see how it would work.

[zbeg]

Of course have fans a say, they just don't make the final decision. That is up to the owners, coaches, and management.

If you look at the Packers though, they're collectively owned and they seem to be doing pretty well. Maybe the NFL should switch to that type of model for all teams. It would definitely be interesting to see how it would work.

They're collectively owned, but only the front office makes the decisions about personnel. It's not like they're opening up fan voting for who is going to start at running back each week.

[BroncoStud]

Of course fans have a voice. It should be heard. It's called the First Amendment and it's the most vital right we have as human beings.

If we don't like what we see we have EVERY right to voice that displeasure. You big government / restrictive goons need to learn that. Move to Communist China or North Korea if you don't like the fact we have the right to voice displeasure.

Do fans have authority in personnel decisions? Of course not. But we pay the bills, we watch the games, and when we stop attending the games changes will be made - that is just fact.

So I would suggest if you have an issue with fans having a say, direct or indirect, that you get over it. It isn't going away. This isn't Communist China, Soviet Russia, or NAZI Germany.

[Tned]

I believe that fans should be heard, but that an organization itself should not be run of the basis of a fan bases' opinions. Let's face it, opinions are like ass***es, everyone has one - and as such it could cause several issues within an organization.

However, like Tned said, there are exceptions to the rule. I don't give a rat's ass if someone wants to protest something in his or her own manner, no matter the cause...that's their constitutional rights. And I do believe however, that teams should listen to the fans and respect their opinions, see what bothers them because they are the backbone of any professional sports team. Doesn't matter if they're upset about a particular player or if they believe the uniforms are in need of change, whatever the cause, an NFL team should be aware of at least what is bothering their fan base, whether it's because they're upset with the price of concessions, feel parking is too expensive, that jerseys are poorly made or there is another item that has flaws and so on. Disgust with one particular player at a set position, does it mean their going to make a change at the position? No, but at least they know, and in doing so they can make a much more informed decision should they do something; for instance they could say "Should we extend Orton's contract?", then someone can say "Well we could but it could cost us in regards to the fans."

Exactly, and based on what I've seen, the Broncos are listening to fans and attempting to reach out to them far more than in past years. The jerseys are one example, more transparency from the FO (some backfiring) is another.

I think the increased season ticket cancellations (names coming up on waiting list after 5 years, instead of 10 or 15) and all the no shows at the end of last season, made a big impression on the organization.

Still, the HC should be fired if he put in a QB just because he's popular with the fans, or benched one, because he's unpopular. If the QB is changed, it has to either because the new QB gives us a better chance to win NOW, or it has to be a move that's seen as an investment in the future.

[zbeg]

Of course fans have a voice. It should be heard. It's called the First Amendment and it's the most vital right we have as human beings.

If we don't like what we see we have EVERY right to voice that displeasure. You big government / restrictive goons need to learn that. Move to Communist China or North Korea if you don't like the fact we have the right to voice displeasure.

Do fans have authority in personnel decisions? Of course not. But we pay the bills, we watch the games, and when we stop attending the games changes will be made - that is just fact.

So I would suggest if you have an issue with fans having a say, direct or indirect, that you get over it. It isn't going away. This isn't Communist China, Soviet Russia, or NAZI Germany.

The first amendment is only to protect speech from legal consequences. The first amendment has nothing to do with what other people think about what you have to say.

If someone says something stupid and then someone else says, "Hey wait a minute, what you said is incredibly stupid and I'm going to ignore you now based on how stupid you are," then that sucks - and the first amendment has nothing to do with that.

[Northman]

I heard a great debate on radio today on if fans should realistically have a say in anything.

I am sure they came up with the idea because the entire not starting Orton thing.

I personally am glad they do not listen to fans from a lot of posts I see on the board. ;) j/k

I personally think the fans shouldn't have a say because this is the reason people in office are getting paid for. If you don't like what you are paying for.. Don't pay for it (also that way I get my season tickets a little quicker). Any professional team would make a major change from a team is if it is going to help financially or win games.

A great analogy I heard was a person mentioned if he has 5 shares of apple... Should he have a say on there releases? Should a person have say if they have 1200 shares have a say for something else to be released first?

Absolutely not.

If I currently take my child to private school. Do I have a say in policy?

Same thing with sports. You better be investing a lot of money into the business before you think you ever will have a say. This is not just entertainment but also a business.

Can you imagine a vet athlete ever wanting to come to a team that pulls a player for a fan? Can you imagine what kind of coach that would be swayed by a fan?

What do you all think. With out discussing our QB situation in general about how much say should a fan actually have?


When it comes to the choices made with players. No. In the end the coaches are the ones being paid to run and coach the team.

However, when it comes to guys like Jesse Oaks it isnt about whether or not he should make the call or any fan. Oaks is really only doing what a lot of fans are thinking. I mean shit, we've been clamoring on this forum for 2 years that Orton isnt our guy and would much rather see someone else. Oaks just happens to be someone who is taking his displeasure to another level. But he's perfectly entitled to do that.

The thing is, sure, many people can just NOT PAY for tickets, merch, etc. But thats not how fandom works Nick. Fans are emotionally invested in their teams. The players, coaches, are not. Its just a job to them especially in this day and age. And the thing is, if your a group of people who are unhappy with what is going on with a particular thing than how do you change it?

When we arent happy with a political official what do we do? We organize and vote them in or out correct? Now, why coaching or deciding who plays on a sports team isnt exactly politics the idea is the same. And if you have a group of people who arent happy with the product whats the best way to try and make a change? Thats right, organize and promote your pleasure or displeasure for whatever cause you feel necessary. It doesnt mean your going to get your wish but its still your right to do so.

I saw a billboard a while back with a picture of a rat and a baby child. It said something along the lines of "which would you choose?" which basically was defending testing on animals as opposed to saving a kids life. While i disagree with the billboard personally i respect the fact they have the right to post it.

So back to your question. No, in the end the fans cannot have the say but they can voice it. They are the paying customer and like any product if they are not satisfied they will let the company know. Some people when they are not happy will just return the merch. Others, write letters of their grievance and take it as far as they can until they feel they are heard. Jesse Oaks is just taking it too another level. But there is no guarantee that there will be change because of it.

When it comes to the Broncos, it will be what they do on the field that ultimately changes things.

[UnderArmour]

The first amendment is only to protect speech from legal consequences. The first amendment has nothing to do with what other people think about what you have to say.

If someone says something stupid and then someone else says, "Hey wait a minute, what you said is incredibly stupid and I'm going to ignore you now based on how stupid you are," then that sucks - and the first amendment has nothing to do with that.

You misunderstand what he's trying to say. He's saying that you should have a basic respect for the right of the person to speak their mind. People who take issue with those expressing displeasure should instead focus their efforts on defending what they believe in as opposed to just complaining about not what others are saying, but complaining about the fact that they are speaking at all.

I dislike where we are as a society today because the media has devolved into taking snippets out of what people say instead of actually analyzing what they say as a whole. This "how dare you say that!" "OMG LOOK WHAT HE TWEETED!!!" or "WHY IS HE EVEN SPEAKING DOESNT HE HAVE A JOB TO DO WTF!!!" mentality has turned media into a joke. It's turned the people who echo that sentiment into drones. If you have an opinion, express it! Don't think you have to hide it in the shadows and certainly don't force other people to hide theirs in the shadows.

[MOtorboat]

I don't want Fox making calls because of fan opinion.

Doesn't mean they can't boo, or can't chant for Tebow, and it also doesn't mean that other people can't tell them how stupid that is.

[MileHighCrew]

The fans have a choice but not a say. That is how it is and how it should be.

[Tned]

The fans have a choice but not a say. That is how it is and how it should be.

Short. Simple. Accurate.

Well said.

[TXBRONC]

No they shouldn't have a say in personnel decisions. We don't know all the details of what is going on inside the organization.

[Davii]

Fans should, and DO, have a say. You vote with your purchasing power. You don't like the way things are going? Stop buying tickets, jerseys, etc. When there is a drop in ticket sales change will happen. Other than that, no, fans should have no say.

[CoachChaz]

Fans already have a say. If you dont like things then stop going to games. Stop buying merchandise. Stop adding to tv ratings.

If you dont like the new and improved Jiffy peanut butter, do you buy another jar?

If people stop supporting a team or product financially, things change. Simple

[MileHighCrew]

Fans should, and DO, have a say. You vote with your purchasing power. You don't like the way things are going? Stop buying tickets, jerseys, etc. When there is a drop in ticket sales change will happen. Other than that, no, fans should have no say.


Fans already have a say. If you dont like things then stop going to games. Stop buying merchandise. Stop adding to tv ratings.

If you dont like the new and improved Jiffy peanut butter, do you buy another jar?

If people stop supporting a team or product financially, things change. Simple


That is the power of making a choice, not of having a say. You can force changes by making choices but fans should never have a say.

It is like Jiffy, you can choose not to buy the brand if you don't like it, but you shouldn't have a say in the recipe they use for their product.

[Ravage!!!]

I don't think the OP is asking if a person should have a right to "express" their dislike/opinion with choices on purchases. He's not asking if they should have the right to boo.

But he is asking if the fans, as a whole, should have the right to make personnel decisions. To me, its an easy and obvious answer, No. Sure you can boo. Sure you can cancel your season tickets (which is a really drastic thing to do unless you are just giving up on the broncos altogether ... or just can't afford them anymore). But I don't want us deciding who's on the field playing.

Fans are too emotionally attached.

[The Glue Factory]

Let's face it, opinions are like ass***es, everyone has one

You got a donkey!? I don't have one! That's so fracking unfair. Shrek has a donkey. You got a donkey. Yet, here I am donkeyless. Sans donkey. Beast-of-burden deprived. :tsk: I think you're horribly misguided on this point Lancane. I don't have a donkey so how can you say I have an a$$?





You are now returned to your regularly scheduled debate...

/threadjack

:D

[Dreadnought]

There's just no way that the fans can make informed decisions about the team. The front office sees all the stuff going on behind the scenes, they see how the players practice, how they are in the locker room, get access to game film, etc.

Even when it comes to evaluating on-field performance, they understand football much much better than the fans do and can see things that the average person won't notice.

It's crazy to think that the fans can, or should sway the coaches in making personnel decisions. As Mike Holmgren said to Matt Hasselbeck after the fans were chanting for his backup (Trent Dilfer), "<bleep> the fans."

The Josh Mcdaniels saga says you aren't always right. Argument from Authority is considered a logical fallacy for good reason after all. The Fan outcry over the Peyton Hillis trade (as just one example) was frankly a lot more perceptive than the alleged experts supposedly "seeing things behind the scenes." Ditto fan outcry over drafting Maurice Clarett. Usually that is the kind of argument bullshitters and incompetents use to hide their own ineptitude.

As for Fans having a Say? Damned right we do. We should be patient, and understanding, but that does not mean we are required to mindlessly cheerfully accept company lines trying to sell us a load of fertilizer, written and delivered by PR weinies. When they produce a crappy product and made obvious errors they should be taken to the woodshed by the fans.

What we don't have (and shouldn't have) is a Vote. Different thing

[BroncoStud]

The first amendment is only to protect speech from legal consequences. The first amendment has nothing to do with what other people think about what you have to say.

If someone says something stupid and then someone else says, "Hey wait a minute, what you said is incredibly stupid and I'm going to ignore you now based on how stupid you are," then that sucks - and the first amendment has nothing to do with that.

The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, twist it how you want, that's what it does. Fans have the right to free speech, like it or not, if not why don't you go spend a week in Bejing and report back to the message board.

[BigDaddyBronco]

Like many have said, fans have a say on how they spend their dollar. Now if you want to expand on how much say you have, organize sit outs. If 50% of the fans sat out the first quarter in protest of watching the same failures over and over and not making a change to try and stop it, it would get noticed in a big way. Or if the same group of fans left at halftime, and came back for the fourth quarter. That would make a pretty big statement.

Hopefully, it doesn't come to something like that, but it would get Bowlen's attention a lot quicker than a billboard.

[Davii]

I don't think the OP is asking if a person should have a right to "express" their dislike/opinion with choices on purchases. He's not asking if they should have the right to boo.

But he is asking if the fans, as a whole, should have the right to make personnel decisions. To me, its an easy and obvious answer, No. Sure you can boo. Sure you can cancel your season tickets (which is a really drastic thing to do unless you are just giving up on the broncos altogether ... or just can't afford them anymore). But I don't want us deciding who's on the field playing.

Fans are too emotionally attached.

If fans made the personnel decisions 4-12 would be a good season and Bowlen really would be broke.

[Dreadnought]

I don't think the OP is asking if a person should have a right to "express" their dislike/opinion with choices on purchases. He's not asking if they should have the right to boo.

But he is asking if the fans, as a whole, should have the right to make personnel decisions. To me, its an easy and obvious answer, No. Sure you can boo. Sure you can cancel your season tickets (which is a really drastic thing to do unless you are just giving up on the broncos altogether ... or just can't afford them anymore). But I don't want us deciding who's on the field playing.

Fans are too emotionally attached.

I took the OP's point a bit differently. I took it as a refutation of the idea that "True Blue" Bronco fans must always support the decisions made by team management, and assume that all such decisions are made for the best, or they are somehow Quislings or fair weather fans. Now, I require my daughter to accept my decisions, but that's a different level of relationship. Fandom is voluntary after all, sort of a social compact. We give the organization support, money, attendance, etc, and in return we have the right to expect that they will repay this by doing a good job building and maintaining an NFL franchise. If we expect that ours must always be the best of the 32 franchises, that every season must be a winning season, and that anything less than Championships is unacceptable then we are clearly idiots and should be disregarded. The flipside is that management should never feel too comfy, and especially when their performance sucks. So, when they put a bad team on the field by all means Boo at the top of your lungs. Let 'em hear it.

For the record I'm not convinced right now that our entire roster is all that bad, but we have some seriously weak links. I'd like to see RB, QB and DT addressed, please. O-Line depth stinks. There are other areas of concern, but there is also a decent numebr of pretty good ballplayers on this roster.

[CoachChaz]

Like many have said, fans have a say on how they spend their dollar. Now if you want to expand on how much say you have, organize sit outs. If 50% of the fans sat out the first quarter in protest of watching the same failures over and over and not making a change to try and stop it, it would get noticed in a big way. Or if the same group of fans left at halftime, and came back for the fourth quarter. That would make a pretty big statement.

Hopefully, it doesn't come to something like that, but it would get Bowlen's attention a lot quicker than a billboard.

This doesnt always work. As a fan of Orioles baseball, I have endured 15 years of losing and a poorly run organization. 2 years ago a large group of fans organized sit outs and in game demonstrations. Unfortunately, our owner got a ton of money from the MASN tv contract and is content with pocketing it as opposed to putting a solid product on the field.

A recent Yahoo sports article lists the O's as the #2 sports team in fans lost over the past decade. Attendance is down 44% and wins are up 0% and

Now...can Bowlen afford it like Angelos can? Probably not. But I condone not going to games, not buying merch, etc. to prove a point to the organization that the fanbase isnt happy...but I would never expect anything to come of it. It simply depends on how serious the ownership and management take things

[rationalfan]

great thread.

like many people have already stated; fans do have a say - through their money spent. that's it. and that's how it should be. but it's not so cut and dry.

two thoughts on that:
1. one thing to keep in mind with this discussion, though, is that you have to remember "fans" are more than just broncos fans. they're football fans. a large chunk of the broncos' income comes from tv revenue. that's national tv revenue, not just denver or colorado tv revenue. so we're talking about collective football fans fueling the league through their interest in televised games, which make the networks money through advertising, of which a share is given to nfl owners - i believe (correct me if i'm wrong). so, in some ways, the general football fan who watches any game on tv or follows fantasy football has almost as much pull as the die hards on this board who never get to a game in Mile High. Which leads to ...

2. The idea of voicing your opinion of disgust by not going to games. Great form of protest. I truly admire it. But, in denver, there will always be some other fan ready to take your spot by buying a scalped ticket or taking over your season ticket status. Plus, so many of today's game tickets are sold to corporations/companies who dole them out to employees as "benefits." Those companies aren't going to stop buying tickets/luxury boxes just because they don't like the personnell; they see the tickets as a benefit for their companies.

my point: i love protest by the fans, but i really don't think it bares much weight on what pat bowlen thinks - my opinion.

[slim]

Only those that paid for the stadium or own season tickets.

Oh, and me.

[Nomad]

Fans have the dollar to speak with whether it be withholding from merchandise, tickets etc and if they want to speak their mind by billboards, picketing Dove Valley, ads in the paper, etc then they have every right too. Nothing wrong with questioning the organization unless we've all become 'yes fans'.

Should they have a say in player personnel, not really. There are many knowledgable fans out there that know the game of football (X's & O's and evaluating the positions) and not the Madden or fantasy football (silly kid's stuff). True, they aren't there everyday but it's not hard to see what needs to be fixed and when a player is mediocre at their position, but the org seems to ignore it.

[Northman]

The Josh Mcdaniels saga says you aren't always right. Argument from Authority is considered a logical fallacy for good reason after all. The Fan outcry over the Peyton Hillis trade (as just one example) was frankly a lot more perceptive than the alleged experts supposedly "seeing things behind the scenes." Ditto fan outcry over drafting Maurice Clarett. Usually that is the kind of argument bullshitters and incompetents use to hide their own ineptitude.

As for Fans having a Say? Damned right we do. We should be patient, and understanding, but that does not mean we are required to mindlessly cheerfully accept company lines trying to sell us a load of fertilizer, written and delivered by PR weinies. When they produce a crappy product and made obvious errors they should be taken to the woodshed by the fans.

What we don't have (and shouldn't have) is a Vote. Different thing

Excellently said and on the money.

[Northman]

This doesnt always work. As a fan of Orioles baseball, I have endured 15 years of losing and a poorly run organization. 2 years ago a large group of fans organized sit outs and in game demonstrations. Unfortunately, our owner got a ton of money from the MASN tv contract and is content with pocketing it as opposed to putting a solid product on the field.

A recent Yahoo sports article lists the O's as the #2 sports team in fans lost over the past decade. Attendance is down 44% and wins are up 0% and

Now...can Bowlen afford it like Angelos can? Probably not. But I condone not going to games, not buying merch, etc. to prove a point to the organization that the fanbase isnt happy...but I would never expect anything to come of it. It simply depends on how serious the ownership and management take things

Yea, it think that senario is vastly different. We see it time and time again teams like the Marlins never selling out their stadium but they still remain in Florida even while winning championships. In the NFL, i dont think an owner including Bowlen could get away with having a large group of people sit out. He will still get his money but it would also send a clear message that the fans arent supporting the piss poor play.

[slim]

I was told last year, by several people here, that Tebow played the last three games because the fans demanded it.

It was BS then, and it is BS now to think that fans have any influence on personnel decisions.

[Tned]

I was told last year, by several people here, that Tebow played the last three games because the fans demanded it.

It was BS then, and it is BS now to think that fans have any influence on personnel decisions.

Having the lowest attendance since Invesco, errr Sports Authority, field opened in the previous games probably had some influence.

[slim]

Having the lowest attendance since Invesco, errr Sports Authority, field opened in the previous games probably had some influence.

I suppose it's possible, but I don't buy it.

[BroncoTech]

If fans made the personnel decisions 4-12 would be a good season and Bowlen really would be broke.

Anyone with an interest in football could coach us to 4-12 and Bowlen is broke. So much for the present coaches assessment of personnel.

[BroncoStud]

It's always about the mighty dollar. When the organization feels that impact changes will happen.